IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: C1, C2 and C3
Topic Summary: Flawed
Created On: 21 November 2016 11:37 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 22 November 2016 06:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Legh

Posts: 4029
Joined: 17 December 2004

I've always considered the use of tick boxes as rather plebeian and lacking original thought.
Why do we have to have any codes at all and rely solely on the competence and professionalism of a well constructed survey, perhaps with photographs as supporting evidence.?

The use of calligraphic script in old English would be pushing it too far, although it does have its own entertainment value, however, the use of a typewriter would be perfectly acceptable which can be photocopied, scanned or faxed.

Legh

-------------------------

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

de-avatared
 22 November 2016 08:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

Well what I can tell you is that the cottage pie turned out great
 22 November 2016 09:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Well, I will reiterate for the die hard know-it-all on the forum who thinks nothing ever needs to change, that the C1, C2, C3 and FI coding system is flawed and is next to useless. I will also reiterate that the use of a schedule of circuits and test results that copies a EIC is also ridiculous as well as impractical because once an installation has been live for years dead tests are pointless, only live tests are ever needed to verify circuit parameters. Emphasis on condition needs to be brought home to the ever present roadside testers and upgraders that EICRs are not invitations to find fault but to make sure the installation is safe. But that won't change its too common.

Anyway, good luck with it all I am above it all tbh. Fed up of the OMS culture on here. He is poisonous to my well being. Ill figure it out as I've always done and don't need his blessing. Saucer of milk I'll remember that mate condescending .....expletive....
 22 November 2016 10:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

LoL - I've been called far worse by far better - cheerio (again) and good luck with it

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 22 November 2016 10:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 8783
Joined: 23 April 2005

Luckie

Yum cottage pie with gravy and peas one of my favourite meals.

I don't have a problem with the current system of codings. Yes it is useful to debate what coding should be allocated to a particular non-compliance but in the end it is up to the inspector to use his/her judgement when making the final decision.

The inspection check list provides useless guidance on what should be inspected and a record of the outcome of the inspection. It has also proved useful in my experience when prosecuting persons for fabricated test certificates. I watched an NICEIC QS making a complete idiot of himself when asked to explain what the various items were on the inspection list he had ticked as satisfactory on an EICR. He was asked to explain what a safety service was and then what a band 1 and band 2 was and to give examples by the prosecuting barrister. He tried bullsxxxing but the barrister just ripped him to pieces.

P9

You are going to have to explain why you think dead testing is a waste of time on an EICR? I would agree that R1 + R2 testing is a waste of time and Earth continuity can be proved by loop testing (GN3 agrees) but IR and ring continuity testing are appropriate tests if the installation can be isolated.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 22 November 2016 11:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 746
Joined: 17 September 2001

I will stick my oar in as someone who is a regular lurker on this forum, but who is not an electrician.

If I'm going to pay good money for a survey, then I'd like to see something more than a tick box for "good" or "bad".

I have no trouble with the idea of C1 and C2. To me, a C1 would be something that is immediately dangerous, perhaps a metal light fitting wrongly wired so that the case is live. A C2 would be something that is not right, but isn't going to kill somebody just now - perhaps a metal light fitting with no earth, but the live and neutral are correctly terminated.

Just because they both result in "unsatisfactory" doesn't mean it isn't worth distinguishing between them.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD IEng MIET
 23 November 2016 08:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



spinlondon

Posts: 5494
Joined: 10 December 2004

Yes, I also have no problem with the C1 and C2 codes.
To suggest that all C1 codes should be recitified by the inspector is ridiculous.
I have been to installations where there are covers missing from distribution boards, the only way to make safe would be to isolate the supply.
Something that most clients will not agree to.
 23 November 2016 01:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15849
Joined: 13 August 2003

Why do we need a schedule of test results that is exactly the same as the one in an EIC? The initial verification of an installation is completely different to an assessment of the condition of an existing one. I am not going to try to say how it should be changed but there really is a need to do so.

I'd agree with that to some extent - especially with the R1 / R1+R2 as well as Zs columns and per-circuit insulation resistance (remember BS 7671 prescribes insulation resistance limits only per DB, not per circuit, and then only really for a new installation). I've recently been shows an EICR by 'another' for a church, where it seems they'd practically dismantled the installation to get individual R1+R2 values and insulation resistance figures for each individual circuit (about two dozen of them) - what with most of the lights being 30' above the floor (and fixed pews) the inspection apparently took weeks to complete - and a 4-figure bill to suit.
- Andy.
 23 November 2016 01:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 13 August 2003

Most of my clients are commercial and require a report with a satisfactory designation. I do not waste time completing an EICR but instead send them a defects report when serious issues are uncovered. I can normally do this from site via email. Once the defects are attended to, an EICR with a satisfactory declaration is then issued. Works well on most occasions but not all. The key consideration is that the concerning issues are swiftly communicated to the relevant people. Might interest you to note that I often append my invoice at this preliminary stage and I am often paid well in advance of the full EICR being issued.
I suppose that I am lucky as, over many years, I have built up a good relationship with my clients and their electrical contractors or maintenance staff who attend to the defects. It also means that I have no vested interest in compiling defects to make work for myself.
What I would say to P9 is that if he finds the system intolerable, well then instead of exploding like one of those black currants, find a way to do it that he feels is better.


-------------------------
Regards,

Lyle Dunn
 23 November 2016 07:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

The purpose of an EICR, it is to provide a means of investigating whether an electrical installation is still safe after several years of use.
During the inspection process the inspector will find things on which he will have to make a decision as to how safe it is. The present coding system invites coding from the perspective of danger, rather than safety. The coding invites two worst case options C1 or C2 that state two degrees of danger, C1 immediately dangerous, or, C2 potentially dangerous. This is completely at odds with the requirement to judge how safe it is, moreover, it doesn't matter because both signify that it is unsafe. Presently, if an inspector locates something that he decides is unsafe, he is invited to judge whether it is dangerous or potentially dangerous, both in effect rendering what he has found as being unsafe. It is unnecessary to differentiate the element of danger, only that it is unsafe. So, my plea to the IET is to consider the safety aspect of an installation at all times and leave reference to danger out of it completely. So, we would lose the present C1, C2 description in favour of one unsatisfactory C1 code, that it is unsafe. That's all that we need to do. A code C2 would then be relaxed in severity and related to something that is not compliant with the latest edition of the regulations but is in urgent need of improvement, but still safe. The important difference and distinction being it is still safe. A C3 could then be used to identify anything whatsoever that the inspector feels worthy of mention but is still safe. An FI code would be used when something cannot be checked at the time of the inspection and is postponed to a future date, the proviso being that it needs to be checked and provision made to enable it, without any inference as to its safety or otherwise until it has been checked. I would see this code rarely used.
This change, IMHO, would provide some needed refresh and clarity on the condition of an installation and be far more beneficial to the recipient of the report as to where to focus attention. It would also remove the unnecessary division of degrees of danger, from C1 and C2, in to one clear cut condition, UNSAFE. That is the only outcome that matters. By definition, a C1 would attract a need to do remedial work, a C2 or a C3 would be placed quite comfortably in the recipient's decision making process to be dealt with another time. I would also envisage using a separate detailed recommendations sheet for C1 detailing exactly what is needed to be done and the time frame it would need to be done in, attracting an unsatisfactory on the report, and a second observations sheet expanding on codes C2, C3 and FI, allowing a satisfactory on the report where there are no C1s.

This is the sort of change needed.
 23 November 2016 09:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Could you give a few examples of things you would allocate your new coding to - say in a small public leisure centre - say 20 years old - some previous inspection undertaken but poor availability of records

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 23 November 2016 09:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9974
Joined: 18 January 2003

C1 - If you touch it you die or there will be a major fire.

C2 - A level of protection has been compromised.

How many ways are there of expressing this?

Andy
 23 November 2016 09:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



JonSteward

Posts: 659
Joined: 04 December 2007

Originally posted by: sparkingchip
C1 - If you touch it you die or there will be a major fire.
C2 - A level of protection has been compromised.
How many ways are there of expressing this?
Andy


C1 Possible Death
C2 Not Dead Yet
C3 Could Die
 23 November 2016 09:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9974
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: JonSteward

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

C1 - If you touch it you die or there will be a major fire.

C2 - A level of protection has been compromised.

How many ways are there of expressing this?

Andy




C1 Possible Death

C2 Not Dead Yet

C3 Could Die


Perhaps we could apply Twitter protocol and limit a EICR to 140 characters.

Or do you want to go down the Home Condition Report route of having to use approved text to cut and paste into the report?

Andy
 23 November 2016 09:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

OK - seriously, I'm interested to know in practice how P9' s methodology works

So - let's assume the local yuf have given the cleaners socket (plastic) a good shoeing - it's in a changing area with showers and is totally busted - live parts showing

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 23 November 2016 09:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



JonSteward

Posts: 659
Joined: 04 December 2007

How about using imogie's
C1 Frown
C2 Unhappy
C3 Thumbs down
FI Quizzical look.
 23 November 2016 09:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

C1 - you would not allow you children in the premises.

C2 - you would allow your children in the premises providing there was a plan for remedial action in place within a 2-4 week period.

C3 - you would allow your children in the premises, but improvement is required and should be risk assessed and actioned within the RA time frame.

C4 - you would allow your children in the premises without restriction. The installation is considered safe, but may not fully comply with the latest edition of the regulations.

FIN - Further Investigation is needed ASAP as it is suspected that there may be C1 or C2 non-compliances present that have not be able to be confirmed. This requires the report to be assessed as "unsatisfactory".

FIR - Further investigation is recommended to assess the condition of parts of the installation that could not be confirmed at the time of the inspection. The overall condition of the installation is to be assessed by the inspector as either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory".

P9 will go nuts when he reads this!

It's just a idea to give the inspector room for manoeuvre.
 23 November 2016 09:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



JonSteward

Posts: 659
Joined: 04 December 2007

Originally posted by: OMS
OK - seriously, I'm interested to know in practice how P9' s methodology works
So - let's assume the local yuf have given the cleaners socket (plastic) a good shoeing - it's in a changing area with showers and is totally busted - live parts showing
OMS


I'd expect that scenario to get picked up by someone and reported to the appropriate place and a call to the on hand sparkie. If found while doing an EICR I'd expect the guy/gal doing the report to make it safe immediately above and beyond a report.
 23 November 2016 09:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 6882
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: phantom9
. . . I would also envisage using a separate detailed recommendations sheet for C1 detailing exactly what is needed to be done and the time frame it would need to be done in . . .

So you are grading them into things that have to be done urgently, and things that can be left a bit. . . Let's call them C1A and C1B?

Regards,

Alan.
 23 November 2016 10:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

OK - assuming said Sparkie isn't working for free

There is no RCD on the circuit and there is no visible supplementary bonding in the (large) room containing a shower - it appears to be wired in singles in plastic conduit (flush) and metallic trunking above suspended ceilings

OMS

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » C1, C2 and C3

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..